Shabbat 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

It is written here,

in the passage concerning the impurity of a tent over a corpse:

“This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent.”

And it is written there,

in the account of the establishment of the Tabernacle:

“And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle.”

Just as there,

in the Tabernacle, it was

of linen,

for there was no other material that emerges from a tree in it except linen [as it is written: “fine twisted linen.” And shesh is linen], and it is

called a tent, so too here

with regard to the impurity of tents, only a tent

of linen

becomes impure, since only it is

called a tent.

And we challenge this:

If just as there,

in the Tabernacle, the threads were

twisted

from several threads together,

and

there was

a doubled thread

twisted from

six

threads together,

so too here

with regard to the impurity of a tent, shall we say that the threads must be

twisted, and the thread

must be

doubled sixfold?

The verse states:

It is written in the passage concerning the red heifer:

“Tent

—tent”

several times.

The verse includes

for the impurity of a tent even a tent whose threads are not twisted and are not doubled sixfold.

And we challenge this:

If “tent—tent” includes

even every other material as well,

let us include it, and even a tent that is not made of linen should become susceptible to impurity!?

And we answer:

If so, the gezera shava

of “tent—tent” from the Tabernacle

what purpose would it serve?

We further challenge this:

But perhaps, just as there,

in the Tabernacle, the tent was made of

boards, so too here

with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, even a tent made of

boards

of wood should become impure? [See Tosafot, s.v. i.]

And we answer:

The verse states: “And you shall make boards for the

Tabernacle.”

And the verse comes to teach you:

Only the

Tabernacle,

such as the ten curtains concerning which it is stated, “And you shall make the Tabernacle of ten curtains”—

is called the Tabernacle,

and the Tabernacle is called a tent, as it is written, “the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.”

But the boards are not called the Tabernacle

[and therefore the wording of the verse is “boards for the Tabernacle,” rather than “And you shall make the boards of the Tabernacle.”]

We further challenge this:

If that is so,

that wherever it is written, “And you shall make for,” the object made is not treated as the thing for which it was made, then concerning the upper covering of the Tabernacle,

“And you shall make a covering for the tent,”

does

the same

apply? Shall we say that the

covering

made for the tent of hides

is not called a tent,

and therefore does not become impure with the impurity of tents?

And should you say that this is indeed so, it is not possible.

For:

Rather, the question that Rabbi Elazar asked

was concerning a tent made of

the hide of an impure animal:

what is the halakha as to whether it becomes impure

the tent itself

with

the impurity

of a corpse-tent?

What is his question?

After all, Rabbi Elazar derived above the impurity of a tent from the Tabernacle. And if so,

now, the hide of a pure animal,

used for the work of the Tabernacle, such as the hides of reddened rams, which are pure animals, you say

does not become impure

with the impurity of a tent, since it is not called a tent—

the hide of an impure animal,

which is unfit for the work of the Tabernacle,

need it be said

that it does not become impure with the impurity of a tent!?

And we answer: In fact, wherever it is written, “And you shall make for”—as in “And you shall make a covering for the tent”—the object is indeed not treated according to the law of the thing for which it was made, and from this verse alone we would have had to exclude even the hide of a pure animal from the impurity of a tent.

Rather,

that case is different,

with regard to the covering of the pure animal hide mentioned concerning the Tabernacle,

for the verse returned—

the verse returned and explicitly included it,

teaching us that it is called a tent.

As it is written: “And they shall carry the curtains of the Tabernacle and the Tent of Meeting,

its covering, and the covering of the covering of hide that is above it.”

[In the Tabernacle there were three coverings: ten curtains made of fine twisted linen; above them, eleven curtains of goat hair; and an upper covering of taḥash hide.]

The verse compares

the

upper

covering of taḥash

to the

covering

below

of the goat-hair curtains:

Just as

the covering

below is called a tent,

as it is written, “And you shall make curtains of goat hair for the tent over the Tabernacle,” to spread them over the lower curtains—which were called the Tabernacle—

so too

the

upper

covering of taḥash hide

is called a tent.

Here, then, the verse explicitly teaches us that the hide of a pure animal is considered a tent. However, Rabbi Elazar is uncertain with regard to an impure animal, whether its hide is considered a tent.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Elazar asked: Hide

of an

impure animal—

what is the halakha as to whether it becomes impure with the impurity of tents?

And we consider the matter:

What is his question?

Rabbi Elazar derived the impurity of a tent from hide only through the analogy to the Tabernacle, and there the covering was specifically made from the hide of a pure animal.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

It is precisely this matter,

the taḥash that existed in the days of Moses, that

he is asking: Was this

species

impure, or was it

a species

of a pure animal?

Rav Yosef said: What is Rabbi Elazar’s question

about?

We

learned

in a beraita:

Only the hide of a pure animal was fit for sacred work.

And from this you can resolve that the taḥash was a pure species.

Rabbi Abba raised an objection

to Rav Yosef’s statement:

It is written: “And you shall make a covering for the tent, hides of reddened rams, and a covering of taḥash hides above,” and the Sages disagree about this:

Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings. One

was of reddened ram hides, and one was of taḥash hides.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: There was one covering,

and

it was

resembling a species of

animal called

tela ilan.

Rabbi Abba challenges this:

But tela ilan

is a

impure species!?

How, then, could you have said that only a pure animal was fit for sacred work?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: It resembled tela ilan

in that

it contained

[in its hide]

many colors. But it was not

the actual tela ilan

itself.

For there,

it was an

impure species, whereas here

it was a

pure species.

Rav Yosef said

in support of his view:

If so,

meaning that it was not the actual tela ilan, but resembled it in its abundance of colors,

this is what we translate: “taḥashim”—

“sasgona.”

Sasgona

meaning

that

the taḥash

rejoices

in its beauty

with many colors

that it possesses.

Rava said: The source for the impurity with the impurity of a corpse-tent of the hide of an impure animal

is here:

It is derived from the impurity of leprous afflictions.

As it is taught:

It is written in the passage concerning leprous afflictions, “on a garment or on a hide,” and it could have written merely “or

hide.””

What is the meaning of

“or on a hide”?

The verse includes

also

the hide of an impure animal

with regard to the impurity of leprous afflictions.

And

we also include garment afflictions in a case

where it was stricken,

where the garment became afflicted with an affliction only after the garment had already been

in the hand of a koen.

Even if it initially had no affliction, and the affliction appeared only when he showed it in the koen’s hand, the garment is likewise impure with the impurity of afflictions.

The reason it was necessary to include this case is that it is written: “And if there is a lesion in the garment, and it is shown to the koen,” which seemingly implies that if it did not have a lesion before it was shown to the koen, it is pure. Tosafot.]

If he cut off from all of them,

from all the types of garments mentioned in the verse,

and made

a piece

of one of them—

from where

do we know that the garment becomes impure with the impurity of afflictions?

The verse states:

[Leviticus 13:48]

“Or in any work of hide.”

And since we include the hide of an impure animal with regard to the impurity of afflictions, the same applies to the impurity of a tent.

And we reject this:

But there is room to refute this: What is unique about afflictions

is that they have a stringency,

as

a thread made for weaving the

warp and

a thread made for weaving the

weft

become impure through them

even before the thread has been woven into a garment. This is not so with impurity imparted by a corpse, for below [64a] we derive from the verse “a garment of hide” that specifically a garment becomes impure through them, but not warp or weft threads.

Rather, he derived

the impurity of a tent in the hide of an impure animal

from

the impurity of

creeping animals.

As it is taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the impurity of creeping animals, “or a garment or hide.”

And this is how we expound it:

“Hide.”

I have

no basis for saying that it becomes impure with the impurity of a creeping animal

except hide

of a

pure animal.

The hide

of an

impure animal—

from where

do we know that it becomes impure with the impurity of a creeping animal?

The verse states: “Or hide.”

And from the superfluous “or” we include the hide of an impure animal with regard to the impurity of a creeping animal, and from here we derive the same with regard to the impurity of a tent.

But there is room to refute this: What is unique about creeping animals, as

they possess a special stringency, for they

impart impurity at

a small measure of

the size of a lentil.

Can you say the same with regard to a corpse, which imparts impurity only at the measure of an olive-bulk?

Leprous afflictions prove

the point, for they impart impurity at the measure of a gris [which is less than an olive-bulk], and the hide of an impure animal is impure through them.

And the logical derivation returns. This one is not like that one, and that one

is not like this one.

Each has a stringent aspect: a creeping animal imparts impurity at the size of a lentil, while with regard to afflictions even a warp or weft thread becomes impure through them.

The common denominator between them

with regard to the impurity of a creeping animal and the impurity of afflictions is: First,

that hide becomes impure through them; second,

and

the verse made

the

hide of an impure animal

like the

hide of a pure animal.

I, too, will include the tent over a corpse: First,

that

hide becomes impure through it; second,

and

the hide of an impure animal is made

like the

hide of a pure animal.

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi:

Still,

there is room to refute this: What is unique about the common denominator between them,

with regard to creeping animals and afflictions,

as

they possess a stringency, for they

become impure at less than an olive-bulk; can you say the same with regard to a corpse, which imparts impurity only at an olive-bulk!?